CONUS. 167 
Commis nobilis. 
The more detailed account of this species in the ‘Museum 
Ulrice’ enabled naturalists to identify this well-known and 
beautifully painted Cone, a specimen of which (Conus nobilis, 
Reeve, Conch. Icon. 1, Con. f. 2, c) is still preserved in the 
cabinet of Linnzus, and perfectly agrees with the described 
features. The cited engraving of Argenville communicates a 
general idea of the markings of the shell, yet the shape not 
being depicted as subcylindric, it cannot be safely quoted for 
it; as corrected, however, by Favanne (pl. 14, f. E, 2) it be- 
comes an undoubted delineation of the species. The citation 
of “ Mart. Conch. 2, t. 62, f. 689” by the younger Linné sup- 
ports the received opinion. Our author intended to have 
added ‘‘anfractus canaliculati” to the brief definition of the 
‘Systema.’ 
Cows Gewiants, 
This peculiarly marked Cone was pictorially defined in the 
tenth edition of the ‘Systema’ by an excellent figure of Rum- 
phius, from whom the name was taken, and an almost irrecog- 
nisable drawing of Bonanni, which is not so unlike it in paint- 
ing, but has too elongated a contour. In the twelfth edition of 
the same work, an engraving of Argenville, which has lkewise 
been referred to the species by more modern conchologists, 
has been added to the synonymy, as illustrative of the variety 
b; it is, however, a somewhat questionable representation, and 
reminds us a little of the Conus regularis. Of the many quoted 
drawings in Seba, plate 48, f. 1, 2, 3, although placed, not impro- 
bably by some typographical error, after the variety, exhibits a 
typical Genuanus ; the other figures (pl. 44, f. 1 to 4 and pl. 44, 
f. 5) belong to betulinus and papilionaceus. 
The example of Conus Genuanus (Reeve, Conch. Icon. vol. i. 
Con. f. 81) in the Linnean cabinet did not belong to the Swed- 
ish naturalist, who has not recorded his possession of the spe- 
cies, but was added to the collection by Lord Valentia. Plate 
